Face it… hysterical Trump haters have no idea what they are talking about.

A very good friend who has been consistently re-posting the standard, predictable anti-Trump memes and mainstream news items on Facebook recently re-posted this clip of Yuri Bezmenov from the 1980’s :

Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions… but considering the tone of every other politically-themed post she has ever shared, I’m  guessing that like just about everyone who tends towards a ‘progressive’-Left view of the world, she interprets all information that she happens to come across as confirmation of her preconceived, stereotypical ‘progressive’-Left conclusions.

In my experience, most ‘progressive’, Leftist, SJW adherents to all things liberal and otherwise politically correct are aware of little if any context for the snippets of video, news reports and various opinion pieces that drift into their consciousness as the result of no deliberate effort of their own. They simply incorporate this free-floating messaging into their established view – and as they rarely if ever encounter living, breathing human beings in their circle of peers who do anything other than reflect their own opinions back to them… they have no incentive or intellectual pressure to reflect on the limitations,  potential flaws or weaknesses in their point of  view.

In other words, whatever comes to them most easily is all they know… and all they feel they need to know… in order to consider themselves sufficiently informed on any given subject…. not to mention to pass judgement on anyone whom they assume can only be less enlightened than themselves to actually hold a different opinion.

It’s like the uptick in sales recently of George Orwell’s novel 1984... attributed to Trump winning the White House. The people rushing to buy the 1948 novel are of course under the impression that the book predicts the potential totalitarian regime that a ‘conservative’ right-winger like Trump is on the verge of bringing into being.

If these people had paid attention in high school when they should have first been introduced to the novel, they would know it is in fact a warning from a member of the Left about the very real – and repeatedly proven – dangers of a tendency towards totalitarian tyranny arising from…. wait for it… the  Left! (pssst…. that’s the side of politics that people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are embedded in).

But hey…. who needs reality and context when self-serving, circular reasoning is so much more gratifying?

So in a sincere effort to introduce context into the discussion of these very important subjects, I offered the following comment to my friend who posted the link to the video:

“So you realise that this is Yuri Bezmenov talking 30 years ago about how ‘Cultural Marxism’ has infiltrated the institutions… like the media and academia… and is being used to produce generations who are hostile towards their own country, the West and its traditional values…  and who embrace the values of Marxism, right?

In other words, the process he’s talking about began in the 1960’s…. and this video was filmed in the 80’s…. so it’s been roughly 50 years…. which is exactly the period of time Bezmenov  says is required to bring about the desired shift in the culture.

In OTHER other words…. the people he was warning us about in the 1980’s are today’s ‘progressive’-Left liberals…. the people, you might have noticed,  who are presently losing their minds over Donald Trump.”

‘Rebuttals of the Week!’ #8: Stephen Colbert’s joke worse than homophobic… it wasn’t funny!

I have always been a big admirer of anyone who has  mastered the art of acerbic wit. The convergence of intelligence, sophistication, humour, critical insight, self-awareness, language skills and a precise comedic timing is damn impressive. People who wield this skill can expose bullshit, enlighten  and make you laugh out loud all at the same time…. often with a single,  impeccably well-observed and penetrating sentence.

The more famous maestros of the artform immediately spring to mind. Think of Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Winston Churchill or William F. Buckley in the world of politics and commentary. Of course there is Johnny Carson and Woody Allen from mainstream and late-night entertainment. John Lennon was famous for it. There is the genius of the Monty Python crew with their deliciously merciless skewering of the absurdity of the human condition itself.

One of the wonderful things about this talent is that some of its most gifted exponents are completely unknown, otherwise average people from every walk of life and background you can imagine. I’ve met several of them in my time… my own dear ol’ dad was one of the all-time greats.

So when I see bland purveyors of  contemporary ‘infotainment’ lionised by the public as comedic geniuses for smugly purging themselves of whatever adolescent, puerile inanities  happen to emerge from the black hole of narcissism that is the wellspring of their particular brand of creativity…. it bugs me.

Which leads me to my “Rebuttal of the Week” . It is inspired by the recent brouhaha ( or was it a fracas?) over hi-larious conformist,  politically Leftist shill Stephen Colbert’s homo-erotic fantasy about  Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

My exchange with commentator Jane C (below), came from her response to Washington Post columnist Craig Konnoth’s weird, social justice warrior-esque, politically correct admonishment of Colbert. Like a lot of people, Konnoth found Colbert’s joke contemptible…. but not because it was infantile, vulgar, self-consciously mean spirited and unfunny.

cv(Read: Craig Konnoth: Sorry, progressives. Gay jokes are never OK, even when you’re bashing Trump)

No, for Konnoth, Colbert’s crime was that he transgressed a sacrosanct edict of the religion of ‘progressive’-Leftism: Thou shalt not make a “gay joke”. For it has been ordained that gay jokes are “never okay”. This makes Colbert guilty of the sin of “homophobia”. And, as Konnoth reminds us, homophobia is just another form of misogyny.

Yes folks, I kid you not. Konnoth actually makes that argument in his column. Let’s take a moment to fully absorb what is happening here: We have a major American mainstream news outlet, The Washington Post (and also Canada’s National Post by reprinting the piece) promoting the notion that a particularly boorish joke about falatio is proof of an irrational ‘fear‘ of homosexuals… which is really just an expression of hatred of women.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should be mad at Stephen Colbert.

And they wonder why intelligent, reasonable adults are abandoning their lousy publications in droves.

The fact that morally superior ‘progressives’ like commentator Jane C. are fighting with morally superior ‘progressives’ like writer Craig Konnoth over who is most against homophobia and therefore the most morally superior is not only hilarious (ironically, unlike Colbert)…. it is yet another example of how the anti-rational, cognitively self-annihilating ideological foundation of the ‘progressive’-Left is causing the whole thing to collapse in upon itself ( see Progressive Left is Eating Itself Alive! ).

Here is Jane’s comment and my ‘Rebuttal of the Week!’:

Jane C: It’s a BRILLIANT monologue – super funny and it did exactly what he intended to – piss off the conservatives and those who are actually homophobic and thought that gay jokes are not ok, so here’s looking at you, writer of this article.

Going to Getugly  Going to Getugly:  Unfortunately Jane, we live in an era in which people’s context for what constitutes the zenith of wit and sophisticated late night TV humour stretches all the way back to the early days of Jimmy Kimmel.

That’s the only plausible explanation for how anyone could possibly mistake Colbert’s spewing of adolescent cheap shots designed to pander to the mundane, predictable prejudices of his comfortable, liberal, middle class audience as somehow worthy of the evaluation of “BRILLIANT”.

If you want to consider yourself some kind of aficionado of comedy… you may want to extend your exposure to the genre beyond the immediate era. If you do, you will notice that until very recently, comedy that was recognized as ‘BRILLIANT’ actually challenged and unsettled the assumptions of the comfortable, status-quo class. Now, it panders to it.

And even the most mainstream late night television hosts and their audiences could once distinguish between acerbic wit and infantile, crude vindictiveness.

Based on your comments, you clearly represent a distinct changing of the guard in this respect.

Obnoxious Feminist’s Top 5 Instructions For Men

Feminists like compiling lists of instructions for men to comply with in order to be deemed acceptable by their feminist judges. In this video I have a quick look at one of these lists of 5 hilariously dumb demands from professional bitter feminist Clementine Ford that appeared in the Australian daily newspaper The Age.

Feminists’ Secret Belief: ‘Only Men Can Make Us Happy!’

Despite what they claim, today’s feminists seem committed to re-entrenching the ‘traditional’ dynamic that sees women as intrinsically dependant on men to make their lives bearable for them and to solve all of their problems. Check out my video:

I would be very interested to hear from women in particular who would like to share their perspective.

Sorry ladies… I think you’ve lost the plot

Like everyone, I saw the images in the media and online of the huge crowds of women in pink hats who turned out in cities around the globe for last weekend’s ‘Women’s March’. But unlike everyone who has adopted what appears to be the officially sanctioned interpretation of the phenomenon, I don’t feel like I was witnessing some inspiring, enlightened defiance of an existential threat to human rights or a spontaneous expression of solidarity with some meaningful and just cause.

No. What others are giddily celebrating looks to me more like mass hysteria, collective paranoid delusion and pathological group-think… perhaps for the first time on a global scale.

It occurs to me that there doesn’t appear to be as much as a hair’s breadth of sunlight between the messaging recently constructed and amplified by the political and media establishment – disseminated globally by social media and the Internet – and the personal conceptualisations of these ‘protestors’ and their supporters.

Alleged celebrity and irrational hysteric Ashley Judd rants incoherently about mustaches at Woman's March in Washington

So what is really happening here?

To my mind, over the past 10 to 12 months I’ve watched a narrative being cunningly constructed and promoted by political and media elites invested in particular social and political agendas. Now it seems to me I’m witnessing the efforts of those powerful vested interests bearing fruit – with thousands of people (primarily women it has to be said) appearing to have reflexively and uncritically internalised the messaging and subjectively relating to it as a personal insight that mirrors objective truth.

In other words, they are responding to a program of propaganda exactly the way the authors of that program intended.

Ashley Judd demonstrates the intellectual standard required to represent the Women's March

And as seems to be the case with so many of these collective displays of ‘progressive’-Left dissatisfaction and outrage, no one seems able to articulate anything specific that the protests are supposedly about… let alone what they are meant to accomplish.

The motivations are all very vague and ephemeral… especially considering the degree of frenzy and apparent depth of satisfaction being generated among the participants.

“It’s about women’s rights!”

Okay. Could you be more specific? What is it about ‘women’s rights’ that has changed so dramatically in the last four days that warrants such histrionics and extraordinary expressions of outrage?

Anyone?

“It’s about solidarity!”

Okay. Solidarity with whom over what?

*crickets*

Where normally you would expect to find specifics and facts… all you get are vague allusions to some looming, present or past social-justice catastrophe and a rather self-indulgent and frankly adolescent emotionalism.

The thing is,  it is precisely this indistinct and incoherent grasp of their own motivations that you would expect from people who had allowed themselves to be swept up in a program of group-think manufactured by  external sources and designed to activate their egos and emotional reactivity – not engage their intellect and reason.

Ultimately, I don’t believe anyone directly or indirectly partaking in this event is acting out of a genuine concern for the greater good or a commitment to admirable principles. The payoff for these individuals is not the elevation of truth… but more likely it is the ego expansion people experience when they divest themselves of their individuality in favour of the collective identity of a mob. The ‘greater purpose’ of the collective is far more gratifying than the seemingly mundane, ineffectual and resentful experience of the individual.

And I suspect that resentment and a reflex for shifting responsibility for their personal grievances and dissatisfaction from themselves to others is a significant, if unacknowledged,  motivating factor behind much of this mania.

The fact that this character flaw can be manipulated by the media and the political establishment – and on such a grand scale – is about as far away from ‘inspiring’, ’empowering’ and admirable as you can get.

Madonna Louise Ciccone - a woman horribly oppressed by the patriarchy her entire life - finally gets an opportunity to express herself thanks to the Women's March on Washington.

She tells us of her anger. Her outrage. And her obsession with committing violent acts of treason.

Rebuttals of the Week! #7: ‘Like, think about it…Mexico is so totally full of dangerous people who are like, different to us! So why would ‘progressives’ want to move there? Gawd!’

There was a lot of post-election material to choose from for this edition of ‘Rebuttals of the Week!’. But the breathtaking blindness to the neon-lit, flashing, day-glo hypocrisy of the ‘We’re moving to Canada because they’ve said mean things about Mexico’ thing encapsulated the truth about the emptiness of ‘progressive’ thinking so spectacularly… I decided to go with that.

Below are my interactions with three people who embody that style of thinking. You’ll notice all the standard ‘progressive’ characteristics: The withering, superior tone of feeling put upon for having to educate anyone so clearly less insightful than themselves; the obliviousness to the contradictions and inconsistencies in their own position; and the inevitable petulant defensiveness to having those contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out to them for the first time.

They  were reacting to this reasonable comment of mine posted online a few days ago:

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly Why do none of these non-bigoted, anti-wall building ‘progressives’ not want to move to Mexico? Why are they all choosing the ‘whitest’ of the two countries that border the USA?

Tony KoTK: I’ll be nice. Hopefully this is a better way of getting to people who think like that.

They want to come here because Canada is a liberal country in comparison. Our prime minister is a progressive. We are also mostly friendly to other cultures.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly  Oh… so they prefer to be around people who are like themselves…. they prefer people who share the same culture… the same values…. speak the same language…. somewhere they know is safe…. not too much crime or violence….. So that’s why they don’t want to go to Mexico! Interesting.

Tony KoTK : Actually, I just took a look at your profile and I’m done commenting. You are as extreme as the people you hate. Complete waste of my time. Goodbye.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly  And by “extreme” you of course mean you can’t handle having your poorly thought out ideas challenged.


Amy SteryAS: Not to mention that the majority here (in Canada) speak english. Not that that was obvious or anything.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly Oh…. so it’s because they don’t want to live around a bunch of people who don’t speak the same language as they do and who don’t share their culture! Now I understand why they don’t want to go to Mexico.
Amy SteryAS: Easier to assimilate into a group of people with – almost – similar ideals. Culture in Canada is too difficult to pin point as we have so much ethnicity (unless you go to Quebec or British Columbia… maybe even Alberta). To go to another country with so much of their own culture, it would be difficult to adjust.

They would probably be able to afford the hell outta mexico. The climate is beautiful too. But the battles between the cartels and government have been pretty extreme.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly  I see…. so these people feel that immigration works best when the immigrants have very similar cultures, traditions and values as the place they are moving to. After all, it makes assimilation so much easier. I see your point…. that makes a lot of sense!



Jackie BossJB: Think about it. Mexico is pretty corrupt, dirty cops, bad government, cartels who pretty much have power over police and government etc. Mexico is beautiful and probably the most fun place I’ve been to for vacation, but I wouldn’t want to live there

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly  OH MY GOD! Is it THAT bad? Somebody should build a wall or something!

Jackie BossJB: If you read my previous post I said Mexico was beautiful and one of the most fun places ive ever been. I like Mexico and no they should NOT build a wall, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a dangerous country

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly Yes … I read your post very carefully. You said it was a beautiful country full of dirty cops, corruption and violent drug cartels. As you say, a very dangerous country. And if you, your family, your kids lived in a town that was right on the border of that very ‘dangerous country’… and if thousands of undocumented people from that place were streaming over that border every year right into your community…. do you think your attitude about building a wall might be different?

Jackie BossJB: I still don’t support building a wall. They leave their country for a reason: a better life. It may not be done legally, but most of those illegal immigrants dont come to cause trouble. So, no they should not build a stupid wall! 

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly  I asked you if you think your perspective might be different if you lived near the border of a country that you have described as dangerous, corrupt and full of violent drug cartels. In other words, can you show empathy for the people for whom this is a real, daily concern…. rather than merely preaching to them from a comfortable distance of thousands of miles away?